Significant Others and the Self - Semantic Scholar

Self and Identity, 1: 159±168, 2002 Copyright # 2002 Psychology Press 1529-8868 /2002 $12.00 + .00

Signi¢cant Others and the Self SUSAN M. ANDERSEN New York University New York, New York, USA

SERENA CHEN University of California Berkeley California, USA

REGINA MIRANDA New York University New York, New York, USA We subscribe to the assumption that the self is fundamentally relationalÐthat is, entangled with signi®cant others Ðsuch that key elements of the self are experienced in relation to signi®cant others, even when others are not present. In our socialcognitive model of transference, transference occurs when a mental representation of a signi®cant other is activated by cues in a new person that resemble the other. As a result, the self in relation to this signi®cant other is activated, eliciting changes in affect, expectancies, motivations, and behaviors, as well as in the nature of the working self-concept, all re¯ecting the version of the self one is when with the signi®cant other. Moreover, when people experience a threat to either a signi®cantother relationship or the self in the context of an encounter with a new person who triggers transference, this sets into motion self-regulatory processes, which play out in relations with the new person. Overall, we argue that the evocation of prior experiences with signi®cant others tells us something about the nature of the self, affect, and self-regulation that has implications for both resiliency and vulnerability.

Our approach to the self and self-regulation is grounded in our interpersonal socialcognitive theory of the self, which draws on social-cognitive, personality, and clinical theory (Andersen & Chen, 2001). Its main thrust is that signi®cant others are in¯uential in shaping self-de®nition, self-regulatory processes, and personality as it is expressed in relation to others. We argue, in particular, that an individual’s repertoire of selves, stemming from the signi®cant others in his or her life, is a major source of the interpersonal patterns that characterize the individual. In this sense, people may have as many selves as they have interpersonal relationships (Sullivan, 1953; see also Kelly, 1955). These relationships capture a profoundly important sphere of the self, a sphere that includes shared realities with relationship partners (e.g., Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Baldwin, 1992; Hardin & Higgins, 1996)

Received 15 September 2001; accepted 10 October 2001. Address correspondence to Susan M. Andersen, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Ste. 468, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: [email protected]

159

160

S. M. Andersen et al.

but that is unique nonetheless given the idiosyncratic meaning of each relationship to the individuals involved in them. We de®ne a signi®cant other as an individual who is or has been deeply in¯uential in one’s life, and in whom one is or once was emotionally invested, including members of one’s family-of-origi n and people encountered outside of family relations. We assume that self-knowledge is linked in memory to knowledge about signi®cant others, with each linkage representing not only relatively unique aspects of the self-other relationship but also the self one has a readiness to experience, or to become, with the signi®cant other, in other relevant contexts. We refer to each self-with-signi®cant-other as an ``entangled’’ self to convey the continually reverberating and resurfacing ties that bind the self to signi®cant others (Andersen & Chen, 2001).

The Entangled Self The concept of the entangled self emerged out of our research on transference, the phenomenon whereby assumptions and experiences associated with past or present signi®cant others resurface in relations with new others (Chen & Andersen, 1999). This research has yielded the ®rst experimental evidence for transference. The theory of the entangled self extends this work by considering the implications of transference for the nature of self-knowledge, self-regulation, and personality (Andersen & Chen, 2001). The theory is grounded in assumptions that derive largely from the literature on the role of social constructs in information processing (Higgins, 1996a; Higgins & King, 1981; Bargh, Bond, Lombardi, & Tota, 1986; see also Kelly, 1955). It assumes that mental representations of signi®cant others are stored in memory and that transference re¯ects basic social-cognitive processesÐnamely, the activation of a perceiver’s mental representation of a signi®cant other in an encounter with a new person, leading the perceiver to interpret and remember the person in terms of the activated representation, and to respond emotionally, motivationally, and behaviorally to the person in representation-derive d ways. It further assumes that signi®cant others are profoundly important in people’s lives. Mental representations of them are in¯uential because they are laden with affect and because they de®ne the manner in which one’s expectancies, affects, motives, and behaviors in relation to other people ariseÐwhether the other person is a new boss, neighbor, love interest, or acquaintance. We assume as well that signi®cant-other representations are linked to knowledge representing the self one is in relation to signi®cant others. The existence of such linkages implies that the activation of a signi®cant-other representation should spread to aspects of the self that are associated with this other. Research supports these assumptions and demonstrates that, when a signi®cantother representation is activated with a new person, transference occurs, leading one to become in this new interpersonal context the version of oneself one typically is with the relevant signi®cant other (Hinkley & Andersen, 1996). This shift also gives rise to a variety of other self-relevant processes, including affective experiences that may involve emotional suffering, as well as protective, self-regulatory responses. In terms of the latter, self-regulation emerges when a threat to the self occurs in the context of transference so as to repair damage to the self. Threats to the relationship in transference similarly provoke protective, self-regulator y processes. In short, transference sets in motion a variety of self-relevant processes, among them selfregulatory mechanisms. Overall, the data de-pathologiz e transference by showing it

Significant Others and the Self

161

is a normal, rather ubiquitous phenomenon that does not necessarily lead to suffering.

Contextual Activation Our entangled-self theory also rests on the widely-held idea that one’s entire pool of self-knowledge is unlikely to be operative at once; rather, only a subset is in working memory at any given moment (e.g., Linville & Carlston, 1994). Contextual cues determine the particular elements of self-knowledge that are brought into working memory, implying that the self is essentially constructed anew in each context. In our view, when contextual cues activate a signi®cant-other representation, the working self-concept shifts toward the self one is with the signi®cant other. Research has shown that signi®cant-other representations are chronically accessible, which means that even in the absence of transient, contextual cues, these representation s have a high activation readiness (e.g., Andersen, Glassman, Chen, & Cole, 1995). Still, our work has shown that cues emanating from a newly encountered person that overlap in some manner with stored knowledge about a signi®cant other may provide additional contextual activation. In our view, such contextual cues are ones that people are likely to encounter in their daily social interactions (Chen, Andersen, & Hinkley, 1999). Thus, in our experimental work, we rely on these ecologically valid cues to transiently activate transference. That is, we manipulate the interpersonal context so that participants are faced with a new person who is or is not characterized by descriptors that they provided in an earlier session to describe a signi®cant other. In our model, variability that derives from whether or not contextual cues set transference into motion is a major source of contextual variability in the self. Put simply, the self should be determined, at least in part, by whether or not cues in a new person overlap with knowledge stored in memory about a speci®c signi®cant other. Just as non-interpersona l contextual cues, such as those within a professional setting, are likely to elicit the self one is at work, a new person may constitute a ``context’’ that activates a relevant signi®cant-other representation and, accordingly, the associated self-with-signi®cant-other (Andersen & Chen, 2001). As this suggests, our assumptions about the self are compatible with the socialcognitive model of personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). This model conceptualizes personality in terms of IF-THEN relations, with IFs referring to situations or contexts and THENs referring to the particular behaviors that are elicited in them. According to this model, personality re¯ects an individual’s overall pattern of IFTHEN relations. Our theory parallels this model in the idea that variability in responding across situations is fundamental to personality (see also Higgins, 1990; Mischel, 1999). However, it is more targeted in that it emphasizes IFs that are interpersonalÐnamely, new people, who, by virtue of their resemblance to a signi®cant other, activate signi®cant-other representations and bring to the fore the relevant entangled selves (Andersen & Chen, 2001). An individual’s repertoire of entangled selves represents a major source of the interpersonal patterns that characterize his or her personality across different contexts. On another level, like the more global IF-THEN model, our theory captures both idiographic and nomothetic elements. It is idiographic in recognizing that the individual’s unique construals and meanings lie at the heart of personality and behavior. Indeed, our theory requires an idiographic approach because signi®cantother representations are, by de®nition, idiosyncratic in content, so that both their

162


substance and the cues that will best activate them are likely to be unique to the individual. Yet, it is nomothetic in that it focuses on generalizable social-cognitive processes as the mechanisms by which such representations are activated and used. As well, we assume that self-regulator y processes in transference are general (i.e., nomothetic), even though the unique meanings that derive from the signi®cant-other relationship give them their impetus by de®ning what is threatening in transference and provokes self-regulation.

Basic Evidence Initial research on transference focused on inference and memory effects, demonstrating that people rely on stored knowledge about signi®cant others to ®ll in the blanks about new others (Andersen & Cole, 1990). Speci®cally, after encountering a new person who was characterized by descriptors that participants had generated weeks earlier about a signi®cant other, participants are especially con®dent that they were presented with descriptors about this new person that were not in fact presented, but that do characterize their signi®cant other (e.g., Andersen & Cole, 1990). Studies have shown that neither the self-generated nature of the signi®cant-other descriptors, nor a reliance on generic categories or stereotypes, can account for these robust effects, which also emerge when the signi®cant-other representation is activated on the basis of descriptors presented outside of awareness (Glassman & Andersen, 1999). Research has also shown that the activation of a signi®cant-other representation elicits affective responses typically experienced in relation to the signi®cant other, in accordance with the theory of schema-triggered affect (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986). Speci®cally, a new person who resembles a positive signi®cant other, and thus activates the representation of this other, is evaluated more positively than a new person who resembles a negative signi®cant other (e.g., Andersen & Baum, 1994). The overall evaluation of the signi®cant other is thus applied to the new person. Moreover, people’s motivations to approach and to be emotionally open with signi®cant others, or to withdraw and be closed and distant, as well as their expectations regarding acceptance or rejection from signi®cant others, come into play as a function of the affect associated with the relevant signi®cant other (e.g., Andersen, Reznik, & Manzella, 1996). Thus, in transference, people want to be emotionally close to new others who resemble a positive versus a negative signi®cant other, and also expect to be accepted rather than rejected by them. Parallel effects have been demonstrate d when examining people’s facial expressions, which show positive affect when reading descriptive cues about a new person who triggers a positive versus negative transference. To further concretize the evidence for transference, research has shown that when a new person activates a signi®cant-other representation, interpersonal behavior during an unstructure d telephone conversation re¯ects the relationship with the signi®cant other (Berk & Andersen, 2000). Speci®cally, using a variant of Snyder, Tanke, and Bersheid’s (1977) classic paradigm, we assessed the conversationa l behavior of a target person during an interaction with a perceiver who was experiencing a positive or negative transference. Evidence for behavioral con®rmation emerged such that the target’s conversational behavior came to re¯ect the affect associated with the signi®cant other, as coded by blind judges who could not hear the perceiver’s contributions to the conversation. Finally, research shows that when a new person activates a signi®cant-other representation, this activation spreads to elements of the self that are linked to the


163

relevant signi®cant other, resulting in an in¯ux of self-with-signi®cant-other features into the working self-concept (Hinkley & Andersen, 1996). In short, encounters with new people who bear some resemblance to a signi®cant other lead people to view themselves, in part, as they are when with the relevant signi®cant other.

Self-Regulation We argue that self-regulatory responses occur in transference because signi®cant others and relationships with these individuals are imbued with special emotional resonance. Various forms of evidence support this claim. Research demonstrates that shifts in the content of the working self-concept toward the relevant self-with-signi®cant-other are accompanied by shifts in selfevaluation (Hinkley & Andersen, 1996). Namely, people evaluate themselves in a manner that parallels the overall positive or negative affect associated with the relevant signi®cant other. When one encounters a new person who activates a negative signi®cant-other representation , negative elements of the self are brought into working memory, instigating a negative shift in self-evaluation. However, in such cases, compensatory self-enhancement also occurs in response to this threat to the self. Speci®cally, aspects of the working self-concept that do not shift toward the relevant self-with-signi®cant-other are judged to be overwhelmingly positive. We argue that such self-enhancement re¯ects a protective, self-regulatory response, much as observed in self-af®rmation theory (e.g., Steele, 1988) or in terror management theory (e.g., Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Chatel, 1992; Hinkley & Andersen, 1996). Research has also shown that individuals may engage in compensatory relationship enhancement in transference as a response to threat (Andersen et al., 1996). When one’s overall positive feeling toward a signi®cant other and one’s relationship with the other are threatened due to encountering negative aspects of the signi®cant other in a new person who resembles the signi®cant other, compensatory enhancement of the other occurs. Namely, participants’ immediate expression of facial affect upon exposure to negative features that characterize a positive signi®cant other is especially positive. Thus, things we do not like about a positive signi®cant other but have somehow managed to integrate into our overall understanding of him or her and perhaps repeatedly worked to minimize in our minds (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1993), yield not negative affect in transference, but positive affect. Presumably this responseÐin which ¯aws become charmingÐis so well-practiced that it readily emerges as a relationship-protectiv e response in transference. Examining the intersection between our theory and self-discrepancy theory (e.g., Higgins, 1987, 1996b) provides yet another framework for conceptualizing selfregulation in transference. In that model , a self-regulatory focus that is attuned to attaining (or not losing) positive outcomes stems from ideal self-standards , while a focus attuned to avoiding (or preventing) negative outcomes stems from ought selfstandards. Either self-standard can be held from a signi®cant other’s standpoint. Such self-standards should be stored as part of the linkages between signi®cant others and the self, such that activating a signi®cant-other representation should not only trigger transference but should also activate associated self-standards and selfregulatory focus. For example, when a woman’s representation of her mother is activated, the mother’s ideal self for her and the mother’s perception of her actual self should be activated, thereby making salient self-discrepancies held from her

164


mother’s perspective, which in turn should elicit the affective and motivational consequences predicted by self-discrepancy theory. Our research shows that the activation of a signi®cant-other representation does indeed lead to the activation of the self-standards most closely associated with the signi®cant other and any associated self-discrepancy (Reznik & Andersen, 2001). The evidence for this is mainly that depressive affect occurs in transference among people with ideal self-discrepancies, while agitation-relate d affect occurs among those with ought self-discrepancies. These data demonstrate the con¯uence of processes based in self-discrepancy theory with those based in transference . Evidence also suggests that transference can trigger self-regulatory focus, in that idealdiscrepant individuals become more poised to engage with the new person while thinking about interacting with him or her than when no longer expecting to do so, whereas ought-discrepan t individuals are more likely to wish to avoid the other while thinking about interacting rather than when no longer expecting to interact.

Implications We believe our work has implications for both vulnerability and resilience, even though it has focused on ``normal’’ processes that do not necessarily involve suffering. In terms of resilience, interpersonal motivations, such as the need to connect with others, are clearly activated in transference, and evoke a willingness to reach out to others in a positive wayÐwhen the activated signi®cant-other representation is of one that is positively regarded. More concretely, in a positive transference, people may be more likely to give others the bene®t of the doubt, and to assume congeniality and reciprocity. Thus, transference involving a positive signi®cant other may be important in resilience because it includes the re-emergence of a positive relationship, and this process may facilitate the continued formation of benign and trusting bonds. In this sense, just one positive relationshipÐcharacterized by love, trust, and mutual respectÐmay begin the process of forming multiple, positive models of self-other relations to which one can later refer. Other factors can prevent one from being motivated to ®nd, develop, or maintain new and healthy signi®cant-other relationships, or from having the resourcefulness or good luck to be able to do so. Indeed, transference itself may pose obstacles by promoting self-ful®lling prophecies in the kinds of relationships one fashions and, if one is used to maladaptive signi®cant-other relationships, this can become self-defeating. Thus, people suffering from maladaptive relationship patterns might bene®t from taking part in any activityÐsuch as sports, band practice, mentoring, collaborative work arrangements, or community serviceÐ that offers opportunities to develop working relationships involving a degree of trust, mutuality, respect, and affection, which can then serve as the foundation for forming new, positive models of relating with others. Under these conditions, we would assume new, more healthful signi®cant-other representations and associated representations can form, becoming the basis for new experiences of transference. Of course, it is not only the positivity or negativity of signi®cant-other relationships that determines whether or not transference becomes problematic. Some relationships in which one loves the signi®cant other nonetheless involve maladaptive interpersonal patterns, including self-destructive affective responses, selfevaluations, and actions. In this sense, even a positive transference can lead to suffering. Hence, at the very least, many signi®cant-other representations are likely


165

to be ambivalentÐand in various ways. The nuanced view, then, is that the precise nature of the relationship or how one experiences the self in that relationship is most relevant to vulnerability versus resiliency in transference . For example, the standards one believes that signi®cant other holds one to may lead one to despair, even if one feels great love for this other. Replaying the pattern of loving and yet sinking into despair in response to the other is maladaptive , and yet can stem from a largely positive transference. This example re¯ects one way in which our work on transference can speak to clinical assumptions about how human suffering may derive from superimposing memories about past relationships onto new people. We have identi®ed basic social-cognitive mechanisms by which interpersonal patterns are transmitted from one relationship to the next, and our work suggests that whether this is problematic or not is likely to depend on the particular content and dynamics of the signi®cant-other representation and relationship. Indeed, some of these dynamics may include over-learned, potentially counterproductiv e self-regulatory patterns, developed to cope with threat in the relationship. We cannot know for certain from our existing research, of course, that healthy relationships are at the basis of resilience simply because they offer positive self-other models that one carries around in one’s head and can tap in relevant situations. We also cannot argue de®nitively from our data that such relationships are at the basis of the emotional resources needed to engage in self-protective strategies in the context of a negative transference. But our work is generally consistent with these ideas. For example, the fact that normal people, when experiencing a negative transference, engage in self-protective processes, suggests that such self-regulatory processes are perhaps associated with effective functioning and with resiliency in the face of dif®culty. Such an assumption is indirectly supported by empirical evidence showing that people suffering from conditions like depression or low self-esteem tend to show less self-enhancement (e.g., Taylor & Brown, 1988). In our work, normal college students responded to a negative transference by emphasizing positive self-aspects. Such a response may buffer the self-esteem threat inherent in the in¯ux of negative aspects of the relevant self-with-signi®cant-other into working memory. If such a self-protective compensatory response were to break down, the accessibility of negative self-aspects might lead other aspects of the working self-concept to become similarly negative, precipitating a situational drop in self-esteem (e.g., Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). In this sense, the self-protective self-regulation we have observed in transference may be valuable in resilience. At the same time, there is likely a point beyond which self-protective strategies cease being adaptive, such as may be the case among narcissistic individuals, who appear to use them in extreme form and to have very troubled and troubling relationships (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2002). Hence, it may be at the edges of experienceÐwith not enough or with too much self-protectionÐthat vulnerability or resilience arises in transference. Similarly, we also assume that relationship-protectiv e self-regulation in transference can also be healthful in transference under some conditions, and problematic in others, with its severity again being critical. Believing that a signi®cant-other relationship is healthy, even while it involves counterproductiv e and self-defeating patterns, could lead one to discount negative evidence in the context of transference that might otherwise lead one to expect problems. Indeed, this could lead one to repeat maladaptive relational patterns. For example, if a loved one were negligent, rejecting, or even abusive, habitually implementing relationship-repair strategies in relation to such cues could become the basis for being drawn into and maintaining

166


destructive relationships. Hence, even as one disparages qualities that one cannot abide, one may respond to another person in transference by turning a blind eye to these very qualities. At the same time, relationship-protectiv e processes can also be helpful in enabling one to give relatively benign individuals the bene®t of the doubt. When we ®nd ways to accept the ¯aws in otherwise decent people, it makes our lives (and theirs) easier, and we can better navigate annoying, but relatively benign, transference relationships as well. We also assume that under some circumstances, people may not engage in the self-regulatory responses in transference described here and that this may allow vulnerabilities to arise in transference. For example, individual differences associated with chronic negativity in self-views, such as low selfesteem and depression, should preclude self-protective responses to a negative transference experience due to a depletion of the cognitive and emotional resources needed to do so. We are currently testing this, which should tell us about what happens in transference when self-protective processes break down. We assume that if such self-regulatory processes were not marshaled in the original signi®cant-other relationshipÐthat is, if one surrendered to the painful experience at the timeÐselfregulation will be less likely in later transference experiences. Likewise, if the disappointment in the transference with the new person is suf®ciently profound or the lure of same leads to a suf®ciently pervasive renunciation of potentially buoying social resources in the interim, we assume that this too could contribute to a breakdown in self-regulation. On another note, just as positive transference may facilitate the development of social bonds, negative transference experiences may disrupt relationship development. For example, a negative transference may lead to evaluating new others unfavorably , expecting to be rejected, and having little motivation to be close. And the self-protective processes we have observed could play out in the form of retreating from a new other or even of breaking off ties with him or her once involved. Hence, if the negative transference is misplaced, the impenetrability that may accompany the self-bolstering may be as counterproductiv e as is breaking off the relationship. And yet, when the negative transference involves a fairly accurate assessment of the person, distancing or exiting may be the most adaptive response, which highlights the complexities of these questions. And, to be clear, the issues of negative self-experiences in transference should not be limited to negative transference, because even in a positive transference, undesired or feared aspects of self may be evoked, setting into motion self-protective processes that could preclude relationship development. When feared aspects of the self are ones that might be helpful to explore or valuable for one’s own growth, nixing such relationships in the service of self-protection may run counter to resilience, whereas when the threat to the self experienced is veridical, it is a sign of strength to have the capacity to exit such relationships or to avoid them to begin with. Finally, these processes may be relevant to remediation and prevention. For example, as one becomes aware of typical patterns and their consequences, one can learn to become vigilant to cues that set a given pattern in motion and, in so doing, can expand the ephemeral moment of freedom between these cues and the problematic assumptions and responses they elicit, so as to be able to practice making the hard choice of responding differently. When attention and monitoring reveal the urgency of changing one’s habitual patterns because their consequences are selfdefeating or debilitating, this can catalyze the motivation needed to resist these old habits. And keeping on track with such plans and aspirations is likely to be most assured when they can increasingly be integrated into one’s overall sense of identity,


167

so that one is less and less attracted to the cycle of one’s problematic, though familiar, old ways.

References Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2001). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory.Unpublished manuscript, New York University. Andersen, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990). ``Do I know you?’’: The role of signi®cant others in general social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 384±399. Andersen, S. M., Glassman, N. S., Chen, S., & Cole, S. W. (1995). Transference in social perception: The role of chronic accessibility in signi®cant-other representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 41±57. Andersen, S. M., Reznik, I., & Chen, S. (1997). Self in relation to others: Cognitive and motivational underpinnings. In J. G. Snodgrass & R. L. Thompson (Eds.), The self across psychology: Self-recognition, self-awareness, and the self-concept (pp. 233±275). New York: New York Academy of Science. Andersen, S. M., Reznik, I., & Manzella, L. M. (1996). Eliciting transient affect, motivation, and expectancies in transference: Signi®cant-other representations and the self in social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1108±1129. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241±253. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461±484. Bargh, J. A., Bond, R. N., Lombardi, W. L., & Tota, M. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869±878. Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2000). The impact of past relationships on interpersonal behavior: Behavioral con®rmation in the social-cognitive process of transference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 546±562. Chen, S., & Andersen, S. M. (1999). Relationships from the past in the present: Signi®cantother representations and transference in interpersonal life. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 123±190). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Chen, S., Andersen, S.M., & Hinkley, K. (1999). Triggering transference: Examining the role of applicability in the activation and use of signi®cant-other representations in social perception. Social Cognition, 17, 332±365. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C.T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593±623. Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 167±203). New York: Guilford. Glassman, N. S., & Andersen, S. M. (1999). Activating transference without consciousness: Using signi®cant-other representations to go beyond what is subliminally given. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1146±1162. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992). Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one’s world view? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308±318. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social veri®cation makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 28±84). New York: Guilford. Higgins, E. T. (1990). Personality, social psychology, and person-situation relations: Standards and knowledge activation as a common language. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality (pp. 301±338). New York: Guilford.

168


Higgins, E.T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J.F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69±121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Higgins, E. T. (1996a). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133±168). New York: Guilford. Higgins, E.T. (1996b). Ideals, oughts, and regulatory focus: Affect and motivation from distinct pains and pleasures. In P.M. Gollwitzer & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 91±114). New York: Guilford. Hinkley, K., & Andersen, S. M. (1996). The working self-concept in transference: Signi®cantother activation and self change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1279± 1295. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Linville, P. W., & Carlston, D. E. (1994). Social cognition of the self. In P. G. Devine, D. C. Hamilton, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social cognition: Impact on social psychology (pp. 143±193). New York: Academic Press. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246±268, Morf, C. C., Rhodewalt, F. (2002). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic selfregulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 243±251. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707±722. Reznik, I., & Andersen, S. M. (2001). Self-discrepancy theory and signi®cant-other representations: Eliciting speci®c negative affects by triggering everyday transference. Unpublished manuscript, New York University. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-af®rmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261±302). New York: Academic Press. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-ful®lling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656±666. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and positive well-being: Some social psychological contributions to a theory of mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193±210.